Hello Vladimir,
I answered your question indirectly because I didn't want to complicate matters by questioning what you meant by "Logos". Philosophers and theologians have been struggling with the word "Logos" for a long time, and this for the same reason we struggle with the word (bit) today; it means what it means according to the context within which your point, opinion or argument exists. Your essay tells me that you agree with Wheeler in principle, but not in the nature of participation, and if I understand you correctly, "OntoMemory" is another way of saying that the nature of observation is dictated by the structured organization of memory. And in quoting Kant, you are saying that Reason and Logic must conform to the form of that organization. If I have understood your position correctly, then I agree with you, but agreeing with you does not answer the essay question.
Hierarchical space-time is a conception which springs from computer oriented research into the nuts and bolts of cognition, literally, and in that context (bits) are important, but (words) are paramount because (words) are the raw material of memory. As I said in my essay, we can't take (words) with us when investigating the primordial form and its organization, because in that instance we're dealing with pure substance.
Let me explain. In the primordial form the pointy bit (pbit) is an indication only, it has no information value in and of itself. But, pointy bits bring about a primordial form which is a template for thinking, and this template in turn brings about (creates) material in the form of particles and radiation, and it doesn't matter whether material comes from a Big Bang, a Steady State process, or a Beating Heart. This primordial template is at the same time a fluid coordinate system, where every (pbit) is a local-sign having a direction and a frequency of oscillation, i.e. granular gravity. For the (pbit) to be information it must be grasped and held by something, and that something must recognize the information held by the (pbit), which is simply a place within a coordinate system. For material (it) to be an observer, it must make heads or tails of where it is, moreover, it must repeatedly grasp and release a number of (pbits) as it moves through the coordinate system, and this it can not do if it is pushing (pbits) aside, because that would invalidate the coordinate system. Mass grasps and releases (pbits) directly, whereas radiation does it indirectly via its interaction with mass, and in that you must see where my answer came from which said that some things can not know where they are until they get there. For instance, a photon can not know where it is until it unites with an electron, and that electron in turn is united with one or more (pbits). Now, from the (pbits) perspective it is nothing until held, but the moment it is held it becomes information, and then, the moment the (pbit) acts on that which holds it, it becomes a player in a complementary existence, that is, the (pbit) and the (it) together constitute an observer. You quote the statement "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.", and so I assume you agree with the sentiment, but I would put it a different way. I would say the universe participates in the observation of itself, and this is not possible if the material created by the primordial template does not repeatedly grasp and release elements of that from which it came.
With respect to the meaning of the word "Logos", I take it to mean "word", and "word" to mean information, moreover, every instance of information recognized is not just an instance of observation, it is an instantiation of an observer. When a photon unites with an electron, the addition of information, i.e. word, instantiates a new observer, one different to the electron prior to unification. When a neuron in the brain is stimulated by numerous pre-synaptic terminals, its resistance to stimulation makes possible a structured set of contributions, and these contributions form a "unity" which is defined as a set of "words" with relative dominance, and this makes the neuron a template for being where relative dominance constitutes the means to a choice by the observer instantiated by the stimulation. A fleeting existence and choice, maybe, but better than nothing, but then, the job of the neuron is to remember observers, and bring them into play when needed.
So, you should see now that evolution takes us from not knowing where we are, to knowing where we are because we have united directly or indirectly with the primordial "word", i.e. the (pbit). In this context only, the (pbit) is the first word, and this word tells you where you are; it may even be the answer to the first question asked by the first instance of material, which I presume is "Where am I?" Evolution then takes us to a point where we can make choices, and in doing so we can know where we are and where we are going at the same time. In other words, in the beginning was the (pbit), and the (pbit) created form, and from that one template for thinking came many, all of which could then know the (pbit) so that the primordial form could know itself. I hope this answers your question from neurophysiological and philosophical perspectives; at least that's the answer within the context of hierarchical space-time.
Thank you for your essay, I enjoyed reading it. I give it a 6, I deducted 0.5 because there were too many references, and another 0.50 because you used (ontological) too many times, and another 0.50 because you tried to say too much in too few words.
Best Regards
Zoran.
